Austin Improv

oh, and i was just using the question rule as an example. what i mean is that any rule can be broken at any time, so long as its a good choice and it doesn't derail things. typically this happens more in shows with experienced players.

i think treating improv as high art is useful so long as it doesnt become pretentious or inaccessible. much like scripted theatre and music have different levels of silly and overly serious, the best improv will have a respectful balance of both. the key is variety. a one-note improv show is boring, just as a one-note play because the audience thinks its all you can do. so maybe bouncing between both and ending up as an average is the best approach.

message deleted . . . poorly

It can be hard to let go of the rules. They're so safe and pretty, but I think what they really offer is focus. They help newer players to focus. Rules like CROWE help them figure out a scene...rules like "don't ask questions" help them continue to yes, and and move the scene forward. However helpful they are though, there is a certain magic that level one players have. A certain unadulterated sense of play that seems to fade away somewhat as they learn these rules and start to think more in scenes. Eventually, they realize that the rules are guidelines and begin to be able to break them. Most often, this isn't done out of a choice like "i'm going to initiate this scene with a question", but rather a "I've got the perfect initiation for this scene" and it doesn't matter that it is a question.

Still, this seems to me (at present) to be a point of focus. The players who skillfully "break a rule" or play "outside of the guidelines they teach their students" are generally players who have the ability to be definitive and focused enough with their choices and the so called rules don't apply.

In upper levels of classes in particular I think the methods students learn become more case specific based on what the teacher thinks his/her class needs to work on...and what's best for one person at one stage isn't always best for someone else at another stage.

So, I can only speak for myself, but when I see a teacher not playing by the rules or not practicing what they preach I tend to think less about how they aren't doing a certain thing or how they are doing something they've explicitly told me not to do...but rather, I think of how they've made these seemingly "incorrect" choices work.

then i post long convoluted stream of consciousness replies on the forum. I guess what I'm saying is, practice your reps in rehearsal, and party your dick off in shows.

Okay, I didn't mean for this to turn into the old "rules" debate. I was going for something a little broader in scope. I shouldn't have used asking questions as an example.

I meant this to be about the instructor who preaches vehemently about the preservation of the ART of improv and goes out on stage and does really funny bits. I'm not saying that being a funny improvisor is bad. I guess what I'm realizing is that most improv class is homoginized to best teach the masses. And class CAN be bennificial for everyone, but only if you realize that not every ideal that is taught is gonna work for every performer.

Like if there's one dude with no with no middle fingers in a huge "how to use chopsticks" class, he's gonna have to take the information that's given as gospel and moddify it to suit his needs. But it's hard for a student to know what will help them when an instructor speaks of certain principles as doctrine or absolute truth. But it's hard for a teacher to teach any other way since there's not time for individual instruction and the teacher is pretty much limited to their own perspective anway. Sometimes you can't beat trial and error.

I suppose the lesson is practice, practice, practice. And just use a fork.

I think the answer was inside of you all along, bill.


I guess no one's prov shows them practicing everything they preach 100 percent of the time. Instructors likely believe in the majority of what they teach you, as you said, to be beneficial for their current students at their current place as improvisers. I personally don't really feel too disenchanted when I see a teacher "fucking around"...I think when they do make a choice to do something like fuck with a scene, or just walk on to do a bit, they're doing so from a place that is fun for them. I'm not sure how aware they are of how what they're doing doesn't hold up to the high standards they've set for themselves and their students...but, at least this kind of fuckery generally seems to come from a place of joy rather than making these choices out of fear.

DollarBill wrote:I meant this to be about the instructor who preaches vehemently about the preservation of the ART of improv and goes out on stage and does really funny bits.

I dunno... I don't think it's so black and white. You can do both i think. Bah, I don't think I can express my thoughts better than what Jeremy already said.

But who actually teaches and then acts this way? Is this a real person, because it sounds like some straw man argument.

DollarBill wrote:I guess what I'm realizing is that most improv class is homoginized to best teach the masses. And class CAN be bennificial for everyone, but only if you realize that not every ideal that is taught is gonna work for every performer.

Or maybe every improv class is just a reflection of that teacher's personal improv experience, so the more classes you take the more likely you are to find a viewpoint that resonates with you.

Lisa Jackson thinks you should teach rules as rules and let students figure out they're not really rules on their own. (Or just tell them later.) I don't like doing that, at least in part because they're immediately going to see "rules" get broken right and left onstage and I don't want that to undermine what little credibility I might have with them. I don't think either of us is wrong, but I'm sure that some people respond better to her approach and some people respond better to mine.

I often find myself telling students, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice you made, but with you it's part of a larger pattern, so you need to be much more aware of that than someone else might." It's completely personal, and after a certain point you (should) know more about your personal strengths and liabilities than anyone else does. I think one of the most important things to teach beginning improvisers is that we're all our own improv schools (Jill Bernard's words) and to encourage them to take responsibility for their own development.

ratliff wrote: I think one of the most important things to teach beginning improvisers is that we're all our own improv schools (Jill Bernard's words) and to encourage them to take responsibility for their own development.

Ratliff, your second hand reiteration of information just totally gave me an improv boner.

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:Ratliff, your second hand reiteration of information just totally gave me an improv boner.

That's pretty much what I have to work with.

ratliff wrote:

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:Ratliff, your second hand reiteration of information just totally gave me an improv boner.

That's pretty much what I have to work with.

I'm giving you ALL the credit.

arthursimone wrote:the primary reason I shy away from narrative is that I don't like The Conclusion... an ideal improvised theater piece is-and-was-and-always-will-be. I strive to establish characters that the audience can take away and imagine existing long after the show is over.

I loved Dasariski's OoB show for this. What a dark beautiful ending that had me imagining what would happen next
to the characters that all drifted off into the woods...mmm...

DollarBill wrote:I meant this to be about the instructor who preaches vehemently about the preservation of the ART of improv and goes out on stage and does really funny bits ...

Improv training is probably more like sports training than anything else. There might be an "ideal stance" to deliver or receive a blow in a martial arts engagement, but you can't yell "time out!" in the arena to line yourself up "properly" before continuing the fight. You just need to trust what you know, stay alertly relaxed and engage in the moment.

Rules & drills are not intended to limit what is possible in actual play. They are only useful for training - for instilling "good habits."

Now, the problem you are describing might be more like this: you're trained in football and want to play football, but you find yourself in a ping pong match. What do you do? Retreat from the field? (Boo!) Belittle the game? (Boo!) Try to fuck with the other players? (BOO!) Try to handle the paddle like it's a shoulder pad? (To the guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)

If it's a game that you're honestly willing to try, just trust what you know, stay alertly relaxed and engage in the moment. What you know may not "ideally" apply, but it's what you got at the moment. If you find that you like this game too, seek a broader range of training for the future. Become an improv decathlete.

As to the quote above, I wouldn't criticize a decathlon athlete just because he emphatically prefers the pole vault to the shot put.

There might be an "ideal stance" to deliver or receive a blow in a martial arts engagement, but you can't yell "time out!" in the arena to line yourself up "properly" before continuing the fight. You just need to trust what you know, stay alertly relaxed and engage in the moment.

I had a martial arts instructor who was very experienced once tell the class that all the training in the world can't account for an opponent/attacker's dumb-luck punch. It was very enlightening to hear him say that.

He also told us a story about living in a bad neighborhood in Austin. Some un-savory types knocked on his door. He looked through the peep hole and saw that one of them was holding a gun, so he ran from the door and shouted loudly "GET THE SHOTGUN" at his wife. The un-savory types ran away immediately.

So yeah, the sports analogy works quite well. You can train with the ideal situations in mind, but should be agile enough to adjust and deal with whatever gets thrown at you during the game/performance.

mcnichol wrote:

DollarBill wrote:I meant this to be about the instructor who preaches vehemently about the preservation of the ART of improv and goes out on stage and does really funny bits.

But who actually teaches and then acts this way? Is this a real person, because it sounds like some straw man argument.

UCB teachers, ASSSSCAT

Once a student mentioned they were going to see a teacher in ASSSSCAT the upcoming weekend. He shook his head and asked her to learn from what he says (in class) not what he would be doing on stage.

But that's a particular show and not the way he would perform in any given situation, so maybe not the exact thing you were talking about Bill...

DollarBill wrote:Okay, I didn't mean for this to turn into the old "rules" debate. I was going for something a little broader in scope. I shouldn't have used asking questions as an example.

I meant this to be about the instructor who preaches vehemently about the preservation of the ART of improv and goes out on stage and does really funny bits.

sorry bill, I didn't mean for this thread to turn into the old rules debate either.

After a bit more reflecting about your initial question, I think its important to look at what it is they aren't doing, as well as what ideals they are still holding true...Like you said, we've seen great shows where the so called rules are broken. So, great shows can still exist with questions, and bits, and selling out relationship, but I think you were right at the end of your initial post in saying that the answer is probably in something called ensemble. Regardless of whether or not someone is "breaking a lot of rules" they are probably still supporting and being supported by the ensemble. If these broken rules are treated as gifts and become patterns and part of the show rather than being mistakes, then have they harmed or helped the show? ...if they are helping, then can we call this them trying and hold it up to some of the more resonant ideals like "be in the moment, be affected, support immediately without judgment"?...I know some people have pretty lofty ideals...I know that some of mine are lofty, but I haven't had any teachers really say anything like "lets blow people's minds with how funny/dramatic/silly we are". I have been explicitly taught that its ok to "break the rules. Still, I think that most of the essential ideals remain even in a show full of gags, bits, and sellouts.